G.R. No. 6463 - Alcala vs. Pabalan

Andrew N. Baysa (petitioner) was the Provincial Adjudicator of the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Board (DARAB) in Malolos City.
Marietta V. Santos (respondent) filed a complaint against Baysa before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for unjust judgment (“maling hatol”) and erroneous issuance of a writ of demolition (“maling akala”) involving her property.

On June 30, 2003, Baysa rendered a decision in DARAB Case No. R-03-02-990799 in favor of tenants Perfecto Cabral and Loreda G. Vda. de Almario against the Spouses Constantino and Zenaida Pascual.
The decision became final and executory on August 14, 2008 after unsuccessful appeal by the Spouses Pascual.
A writ of execution was issued against the Spouses Pascual on September 10, 2009.
The tenants moved for the issuance of a writ of demolition on the Spouses Pascual’s property, which did not specify the nature or location of the structures to be demolished.

Santos, who was not a party to the DARAB case, was nevertheless furnished with copies of pleadings relating to the writ of demolition.
When the writ of demolition was being executed, Santos discovered that the order included demolition of a building on her property which was distinct from that of Spouses Pascual.
Santos sought injunctive relief from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, to challenge the erroneous inclusion of her property.
She also moved before the DARAB to discipline the sheriff and order the parties to desist from disturbing her property rights, asserting that DARAB had no jurisdiction over her since she was not a party.
Baysa denied her motions via orders dated July 22, 2010, and February 22, 2011.

Santos filed an administrative complaint against Baysa before the OMB for simple misconduct.
Baysa argued that Santos was privity successor-in-interest of the Spouses Pascual since her title was derived from them, thus, bound by the decision.
Baysa maintained that Santos was afforded due process since she actively participated in the execution proceedings and he heard her motions before denial.

The OMB found Baysa guilty of Simple Misconduct for going beyond his authority in ordering demolition affecting Santos’ property without due process.
The penalty imposed was suspension for three months without pay.

The OSG supported the OMB decision citing substantial evidence and Baysa’s admission.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that:

Santos was not a successor-in-interest bound by the decision;
Baysa failed to afford Santos due process as she was never impleaded or given a hearing despite receiving pleadings;
He disregarded evidence showing Santos’ land was distinct from that of the tenants;
He adopted tenants’ unsupported allegations and failed to conduct hearings as required;
His acts constitute simple misconduct.

Baysa petitioned for review, reasserting that Santos had procedural due process;
His orders were based on sound factual and legal grounds;
No overreach beyond the scope of his decision was committed;
Santos’ caretaker received the writ of execution.
The OSG maintained its prior position before the Court of Appeals.

Whether or not petitioner Baysa committed simple misconduct in ordering the writ of demolition affecting the property of respondent Santos without due process.

Whether administrative liability can be imposed on a quasi-judicial officer before the exhaustion of judicial remedies against the questioned acts.

Whether Santos was afforded due process in the proceedings before Baysa despite not being impleaded.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove bad faith or willful intent on the part of Baysa.